Comments

17 Nov 2008 - 1:03pm

Loren Baxter

2007

Articles 2, 3, and 7 are great. There are so many services that are
providing users with great functionality while collecting a vast amount of
personal information. But how do we try to enforce or embody these laws?
How do we prevent Google from knowing pretty much everything about us?

A blog post is a good start, but real regulation seems, to me, to be the
ultimate answer. I would be happy to know that someone is watching Google /
Facebook / Advert. Networks / etc. and ensuring that they don't manage to
overuse or overcollect my personal data.

I think its fine to come up with a set of rough guidelines on good
practice.

However, to present this list in the context of of the Declaration of
Human Rights ignores the fact that most of the 'Articles' are
already covered by existing laws, the rest by market forces. The
list completely side steps the fact that we're talking about
Consumers with free will, not Humans subject to oppression and
without the ability to migrate. If something sucks, users go
elsewhere.

I do not see any correlation between Twitter outages and Guantanamo.
To answer his question "why isn%u2019t there a list of users%u2019
rights anywhere?" Users are ultimately consumershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_rights

> However, to present this list in the context of of the Declaration of> Human Rights ignores the fact that most of the 'Articles' are> already covered by existing laws, the rest by market forces. The> list completely side steps the fact that we're talking about> Consumers with free will, not Humans subject to oppression and> without the ability to migrate. If something sucks, users go> elsewhere.>

Yes, because we've seen how well an unregulated free market works
recently.

Users often cannot go elsewhere. Their place of business provides them
with the tools to use. Their doctor takes data from them. A website
they use sells their data to advertisers. They have to deal with their
local/national government systems.

And even if you can switch, it can be a difficult process. Try
switching from an iPod to an open source music player and see what
happens. Try changing your insulin pump.

> Yes, because we've seen how well an unregulated free market works> recently.>> Users often cannot go elsewhere. [...] And even if you can switch,> it can be a difficult process.>> The Users Rights would be for those who don't have a choice.

I'm a firm believer in capitalism, free markets, and freedom of
choice. I'd love for free markets to work, but that would require all
people to have honor, integrity, and a sense of sympathy for our
fellow man. Unfortunately, one bad apple can ruin the bunch.

Balance trumps idealism in my book. We need a balance between free
market and regulation.

Too much regulation has shown to produce oppression and a socialist
welfare state, which creates dependency and reduces innovation. Look
at what Six Sigma did to 3M. A company known for innovation didn't
release an innovative product in 6 years.

But the reverse is also true. Completely unregulated markets have been
shown to produce excessive greed. Look at the executives of the large
insurance and financial companies in the US.

If we were all machines, than either of these two extremes would work.
The face is that we're human. And as humans we have certain desires
and needs, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While we
share similar categories of desires and needs, our individual
definitions of what qualifies those items is different.

If it was always about choice, then fewer people would be using
Windows and more people would be using Macs. Detroit wouldn't be in
such a shambles.

In short, we're human, which is why theoretical ideologies often fail.
Humans can are predictably unpredictable. And systems of balance work
better than extremes.

I don't know of cants think of a place in the digital marketplace
where a user is forced to use one product and doesnlt have a choice to
switch - I think of a bill of rights as a contract between the
governed and the government that is endowed with the monopoly over
coercion and the legal we of forced against those from which it
derives it power. The bill protects the governed most times against
the most aggregious abuses that always stem from individuals wielding
power (see Milgram). The only time I can see this as necessasary us in
the case of government sanctioned monopolies over resources or
government ownership of the means if production or provision of
resources where competion had been made illegal (like amtrak service
in the US). I don't know of this in the software industry in the us -
government sanctioned monopolies - but I am sure they exist. In every
other case, there is choice from operating systems to office suites to
pr0n. So in that case there is almost always choice - and the only one
preventing it is if your employer says you must use X to do a job -
and no bill of rights is going to prevent your employer from making
stupid decisions. Unfortunately, stupid ain't illegal.

>> On Nov 17, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Dan Saffer wrote:>>> Yes, because we've seen how well an unregulated free market works>> recently.>>>> Users often cannot go elsewhere. [...] And even if you can switch,>> it can be a difficult process.>>>> The Users Rights would be for those who don't have a choice.>> I'm a firm believer in capitalism, free markets, and freedom of> choice. I'd love for free markets to work, but that would require> all people to have honor, integrity, and a sense of sympathy for our> fellow man. Unfortunately, one bad apple can ruin the bunch.>> Balance trumps idealism in my book. We need a balance between free> market and regulation.>> Too much regulation has shown to produce oppression and a socialist> welfare state, which creates dependency and reduces innovation. Look> at what Six Sigma did to 3M. A company known for innovation didn't> release an innovative product in 6 years.>> But the reverse is also true. Completely unregulated markets have> been shown to produce excessive greed. Look at the executives of the> large insurance and financial companies in the US.>> If we were all machines, than either of these two extremes would> work. The face is that we're human. And as humans we have certain> desires and needs, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.> While we share similar categories of desires and needs, our> individual definitions of what qualifies those items is different.>> If it was always about choice, then fewer people would be using> Windows and more people would be using Macs. Detroit wouldn't be in> such a shambles.>> In short, we're human, which is why theoretical ideologies often> fail. Humans can are predictably unpredictable. And systems of> balance work better than extremes.>>> Cheers!>> Todd Zaki Warfel> President, Design Researcher> Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.> ----------------------------------> Contact Info> Voice: (215) 825-7423> Email: todd at messagefirst.com> AIM: twarfel at mac.com> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com> Twitter: zakiwarfel> ----------------------------------> In theory, theory and practice are the same.> In practice, they are not.>> ________________________________________________________________> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

18 Nov 2008 - 9:56am

Todd Warfel

2003

On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:47 AM, William Evans wrote:

> Unfortunately, stupid ain't illegal.

Well if it was, we'd have to really increase prison space in the
states :).

Dan,
I accept that we, users/consumers, often get a raw deal. Especially
given the new ground being broken in the information economy. I
reject that we do not have a choice in all but a few exceptional
cases. (I do not understand the insulin pump reference)

To take the iPod as an example; Top notch industrial design, good
interface design, terrible DRM. The marketing of the device plays to
our desires and blinds us to our needs. A little research clearly
demonstrates the significant abuses Apple make on the consumer; You
dont 'own' the music you purchase, you cant move your library,
Apple encrypts unknown information in to your music, etc, etc. This
is publicly available information and I suspect people would more
readily consider alternatives if they did a little more than make
impulse purchases of this trendy must-have device.

The real issue, as I see it, is not one of nefarious design, delivery
& support... the onus should be on end users to inform themselves
about what they're buying or signing up for. You wouldn't buy a
house or car without doing some homework - the value of your personal
data is currently greatly underestimated. I expect that to change as
the information economy/age continues to mature.

I've taken your list of Articles and reframed it to an _actionable_
set of items that will enable users to make purchasing decisions in
their interest, not what they were told in the advertising.

Article 1: I have the right to do my own research and avoid bad
products
Article 2: I am the sole guardian of my own data.
Article 3: My data is of value to others, I should regard it as
personal property.
Article 4: It is my responsibility to understand what a vendor plans
to do with my information when I chose to give it to them
Article 6: I have rights under common law for recourse against a
vendor who abuses my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_rights.
Article 7: Based on Article 1, I should avoid products and services
that aim to lock me in and make it difficult to move my data at a
later date.
Article 8: I should give preference to products and services that
will help and support me after I purchase or subscribe.

I agree on the problem and appreciate the motivation behind creating
the list. However, is the model of a 60 year old document borne out
of egregious abuses the right one in the information age?

This a battle between end-users and Manufacturers/Providers trying to
maximise profit with minimal delivery. Do we ask them to start
playing nice or do we educate and support ourselves? I believe the
latter is far more achievable and therefor the way forward.

Dan,
I accept that we, users/consumers, often get a raw deal. Especially
given the new ground being broken in the information economy. I
reject that we do not have a choice in all but a few exceptional
cases. (I do not understand the insulin pump reference)

To take the iPod as an example; Top notch industrial design, good
interface design, terrible DRM. The marketing of the device plays to
our desires and blinds us to our needs. A little research clearly
demonstrates the significant abuses Apple make on the consumer; You
dont 'own' the music you purchase, you cant move your library,
Apple encrypts unknown information in to your music, etc, etc. This
is publicly available information and I suspect people would more
readily consider alternatives if they did a little more than make
impulse purchases of this trendy must-have device.

The real issue, as I see it, is not one of nefarious design, delivery
& support... the onus should be on end users to inform themselves
about what they're buying or signing up for. You wouldn't buy a
house or car without doing some homework - the value of your personal
data is currently greatly underestimated. I expect that to change as
the information economy/age continues to mature.

I've taken your list of Articles and reframed it to an _actionable_
set of items that will enable users to make purchasing decisions in
their interest, not what they were told in the advertising.

Article 1: I have the right to do my own research and avoid bad
products
Article 2: I am the sole guardian of my own data.
Article 3: My data is of value to others, I should regard it as
personal property.
Article 4: It is my responsibility to understand what a vendor plans
to do with my information when I chose to give it to them
Article 6: I have rights under common law for recourse against a
vendor who abuses my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_rights.
Article 7: Based on Article 1, I should avoid products and services
that aim to lock me in and make it difficult to move my data at a
later date.
Article 8: I should give preference to products and services that
will help and support me after I purchase or subscribe.

I agree on the problem and appreciate the motivation behind creating
the list. However, is the model of a 60 year old document borne out
of egregious abuses the right one in the information age?

This a battle between end-users and Manufacturers/Providers trying to
maximise profit with minimal delivery. Do we ask them to start
playing nice or do we educate and support ourselves? I believe the
latter is far more achievable and therefor the way forward.

Dan,
I accept that we, users/consumers, often get a raw deal. Especially
given the new ground being broken in the information economy.
Suppliers currently have the upperhand in a number of aspects; we're
not well educated on how we can get shafted, its a cool new world and
we forgive 'abuses', etc.

I reject that we do not have a choice in all but a few exceptional
cases. (I do not understand the insulin pump reference)

To take the iPod as an example; Top notch industrial design, good
interface design, terrible DRM. The marketing of the device plays to
our desires and blinds us to our needs. A little research clearly
demonstrates the significant abuses Apple make on the consumer; You
dont 'own' the music you purchase, you cant move your library, Apple
encrypts unknown information in to your music, etc, etc. This is
publicly available information and I suspect people would more readily
consider alternatives if they did a little more than make impulse
purchases of this trendy must-have device. But, I believe people will
eventually learn, once bitten and twice shy.

The real issue, as I see it, is not one of nefarious design, delivery
& support... the onus should be on end users to inform themselves
about what they're buying or signing up for. You wouldn't buy a house
or car without doing some homework - the value of your personal data
is currently greatly underestimated. I expect that to change as the
information economy/age continues to mature. While pure 'market' has
its flaws, over-regulation can be even worse in stagnating innovation.

I've taken your list of Articles and reframed it to an _actionable_
set of items that will enable users to make purchasing decisions based
on their interests not what they were told in the advertising.

Article 1: I have the right to do my own research and avoid bad products
Article 2: Ultimately I am the sole guardian of my own data. I need
to be careful before trusting others.
Article 3: My data is of value to others, I should regard it as
personal property and protect it as such.
Article 4: It is my responsibility to understand what a vendor plans
to do with my information when I chose to give it to them.
Article 6: I have rights under common law for recourse against a
vendor who abuses my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_rights.
Article 7: Based on Article 1, I should avoid products and services
that aim to lock me in and make it difficult to move my data at a
later date.
Article 8: I should give preference to products and services that will
help and support me after I purchase or subscribe.

I agree on the problem and appreciate the motivation behind creating
the list. However, is the model of a 60 year old document borne out
of egregious abuses the right one in the information age? I see your
list as a good problem statement but I'm not sure how we move towards
encouraging these practices.

This a battle between end-users and Manufacturers/Providers trying to
maximise profit with minimal delivery. Do we ask them to start
playing nice or do we educate and support ourselves? Our information
is of value, as with monetary value, we should place our
information/data with vendors who respect it. In doing so we
collectively lead the way and let the 'market' bear its forces on
those who mistreat our information.

/pauric

(p.s. apologies if this has been posted multiple times, I'm having
trouble with the website)

18 Nov 2008 - 12:26pm

Loren Baxter

2007

How can the market respond to a problem that is almost entirely opaque?
Yes, there are some terms, buried in pages and pages of EULAs and Legal
speak, that consumers can read and try to decipher.

The truth is that people are not educated about the problem. I have no idea
the scope of information about me that is truly out there being used, and I
doubt anyone else here does either.

As a UCD practitioner, I find it difficult to just blame every end user and
be done with it.

> Dan,> I accept that we, users/consumers, often get a raw deal. Especially> given the new ground being broken in the information economy.> Suppliers currently have the upperhand in a number of aspects; we're> not well educated on how we can get shafted, its a cool new world and> we forgive 'abuses', etc.>> I reject that we do not have a choice in all but a few exceptional> cases. (I do not understand the insulin pump reference)>> To take the iPod as an example; Top notch industrial design, good> interface design, terrible DRM. The marketing of the device plays to> our desires and blinds us to our needs. A little research clearly> demonstrates the significant abuses Apple make on the consumer; You> dont 'own' the music you purchase, you cant move your library, Apple> encrypts unknown information in to your music, etc, etc. This is> publicly available information and I suspect people would more readily> consider alternatives if they did a little more than make impulse> purchases of this trendy must-have device. But, I believe people will> eventually learn, once bitten and twice shy.>> The real issue, as I see it, is not one of nefarious design, delivery> & support... the onus should be on end users to inform themselves> about what they're buying or signing up for. You wouldn't buy a house> or car without doing some homework - the value of your personal data> is currently greatly underestimated. I expect that to change as the> information economy/age continues to mature. While pure 'market' has> its flaws, over-regulation can be even worse in stagnating innovation.>> I've taken your list of Articles and reframed it to an _actionable_> set of items that will enable users to make purchasing decisions based> on their interests not what they were told in the advertising.>> Article 1: I have the right to do my own research and avoid bad products> Article 2: Ultimately I am the sole guardian of my own data. I need> to be careful before trusting others.> Article 3: My data is of value to others, I should regard it as> personal property and protect it as such.> Article 4: It is my responsibility to understand what a vendor plans> to do with my information when I chose to give it to them.> Article 6: I have rights under common law for recourse against a> vendor who abuses my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_rights.> Article 7: Based on Article 1, I should avoid products and services> that aim to lock me in and make it difficult to move my data at a> later date.> Article 8: I should give preference to products and services that will> help and support me after I purchase or subscribe.>> I agree on the problem and appreciate the motivation behind creating> the list. However, is the model of a 60 year old document borne out> of egregious abuses the right one in the information age? I see your> list as a good problem statement but I'm not sure how we move towards> encouraging these practices.>> This a battle between end-users and Manufacturers/Providers trying to> maximise profit with minimal delivery. Do we ask them to start> playing nice or do we educate and support ourselves? Our information> is of value, as with monetary value, we should place our> information/data with vendors who respect it. In doing so we> collectively lead the way and let the 'market' bear its forces on> those who mistreat our information.>> /pauric>> (p.s. apologies if this has been posted multiple times, I'm having> trouble with the website)> ________________________________________________________________> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help>

18 Nov 2008 - 12:26pm

Andy Polaine

2008

> To take the iPod as an example; Top notch industrial design, good> interface design, terrible DRM.

Seriously, though, the reality of many goods and services isn't
"once bitten, twice shy" but once bitten, forever a walking vampire
of whatever system bit you. Buy a Nikon DSLR and a few Nikon lenses,
it's a bit switch to move to Canon. You can replace the camera
example with Mac/Windows, HDVD/Blue-Ray, VHS/Betamax, MiniDisc, DAT,
and a long, long, list.

I'm not sure we need a separate bill of consumer rights, what I feel
we need is human rights actually applied to products. But what's good
about writing it in a list like that is that it brings it closer to
home than human rights normally does.

I agree with Dan that there are plenty of situations where you don't
have a choice. It is almost impossible to live a normal life without a
bank account, yet for much of what my bank offers me versus what they
gouge, I'd keep my cash under the mattress (or the dog).

Deregulated markets are never really truly deregulated and free
markets are never entirely free. It's a dangerous illusion to think
so. There is always a lot of tweaking, subsidising, withholding and
ruling in the system and it's that which makes it usually go awry.
If the global markets were truly 'free' China wouldn't have to re-
and devalue it's currency every time the US dollar slid.

> I reject that we do not have a choice in all but a few exceptional> cases. (I do not understand the insulin pump reference)

The data logged by my insulin pump isn't easily portable, if at all,
to another pump. (I don't own one, but have family that does).

> To take the iPod as an example; Top notch industrial design, good> interface design, terrible DRM. The marketing of the device plays to> our desires and blinds us to our needs.

I've had a a number of iPods over the years and the DRM model hasn't
gotten in my way. I've put music on multiple machines and iPods/
iPhones, all which I own and are well w/in my rights according to the
EULA.

Do I need a lack of DRM? I need my music. I have it. It plays. What we
need is a fair DRM, which IMHO, we have.

We wouldn't need any DRM if we could count on everyone to be
responsible and not abuse the system. You want to blame someone? Blame
the guy abusing the system that makes regulation a required evil.

> A little research clearly demonstrates the significant abuses Apple> make on the consumer; You dont 'own' the music you purchase, you> cant move your library, Apple encrypts unknown information in to> your music, etc, etc. This is publicly available information and I> suspect people would more readily consider alternatives if they did> a little more than make impulse purchases of this trendy must-have> device. But, I believe people will eventually learn, once bitten> and twice shy.

The information Apple apple encrypts is well known - your iTunes
account name. You can move your library. I've moved mine several
times. I upgrade almost every year and move my library every single
time. So, where's the significant abuse?

> The real issue, as I see it, is not one of nefarious design,> delivery & support... the onus should be on end users to inform> themselves about what they're buying or signing up for. You wouldn't> buy a house or car without doing some homework [...]

The real issue is that consumers need to inform themselves and
manufacturers/sellers need to provide information in such a way that
doesn't prevent us from accessing and understanding the terms/
conditions. It goes both ways.

And if you did your homework, you'd be surprised at the number of
people who purchase a house or car w/o doing their homework, or
thorough homework. I'm living in a building right now that has 10
residents in that situation. The company did such a good sales job and
made promises that the people moving in didn't feel the need to do due
diligence. Hindsight's 20/20.

I've fallen victim to this myself. I accept responsibility for it and
won't let it happen again.

> While pure 'market' has its flaws, over-regulation can be even worse> in stagnating innovation.

Agreed. See above.

> [...] is the model of a 60 year old document borne out of egregious> abuses the right one in the information age?

Until we can get people to stop abusing the system, we'll probably
have to include some restrictions. It's the unfortunate reality we
live in.

Todd/Andy " But, I believe people will eventually learn, once bitten
and twice shy. I don't think so, otherwise Windows would have died
long ago.

Yup, that's theory vs. reality. "

I strongly disagree. XP is a relatively good operating system.
Linux is a PITA to install for novices and OS X only runs on one
vendor's expensive hardware. There was no viable alternative to
Windows for the past decade but now that we have choice, we are
seeing people exercise their right to move.

That's not to say XP is perfect and people have learned... once
bitten, twice shy - so, Vista anyone?

The Windows platform IS dying. Consumers are not blindly upgrading
hardware anymore to run the latest OS. More people are understanding
that they only need a text editor and web browser, they no longer
_desire_ all the features advertised to them.

This is the Market at work, with a healthy dose of anti-competitive
regulation against MSFT.

Todd, have you tried moving your music from an iPod to an open music
player?
Have you tried burning a song you paid for on iTune to more than 5
times?
Why are the songs on my iPhone wiped when I disconnect from my laptop
and connect to my desktop?

The iTunes ecosystem is a walled garden. Try taking your music
outside, as I have experienced, and tell me you own your data.

This is why I believe we do not need a list of rights. Amazon
reviews, the hacker/maker community, sites like dellhell and similar
are demonstrating that users are more educated & empowered than ever.
/pauric

>> On Nov 18, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Pauric wrote:>>> There was no viable alternative to>> Windows for the past decade but now that we have choice, we are>> seeing people exercise their right to move.>> That's funny. I know a lot of people who were happily not using> Windows for the past decade.>> Best,> Jack>>> Jack L. Moffett> Interaction Designer> inmedius> 412.459.0310 x219>http://www.inmedius.com>>> There is no good design that is not> based on the understanding of people.>> - Stefano Marzano> CEO of Philips Design>> ________________________________________________________________> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

18 Nov 2008 - 1:54pm

Dave Malouf

2005

I'm less concerned about DRM and moving product between devices. That
is a choice of the consumer. Buy from Amazon if you don't like iTunes
(or Walmart). Or buy Android or Nokia if you don't like iPhone.

What bothers me, which I think Dan's rights are most important for
is my data. My attention stream, my personal search data, my usage
data, etc. etc. Basically, the content/information that is GENERATED
by me, not collected or consumed. The idea that the system that the
content is generated on owns it, needs to be delved into deeper. I.e.
does Google own every idea I ever wrote in Gmail? They can with a few
loose word changes of the EULA that most people would never read,
right?

That doesn't even get into my contact list, search requests, link
clicks, etc. etc. that I do inside the Google eco-system.

Yes, the issues of portability are important, but get confused b/c
there are soooo many closed systems. I.e. if I buy a PS3 game it will
only run on PS3 and no Wii owner complains about it. So if I buy music
on iTunes I understand that it is for the Apple eco-system and I deal
w/ it and quite honestly, I can always convert to Audio CD and re-own
the important part of the content (the music) even though I know I
loose the metadata (though I never understood why, except to e
annoying!

Since the information we generate can actually be used against us, I
think that regulation around privacy is important similar to HIPAA
regulations around medical data/information.

I do think that the "consumer" be damned and ignorance is no excuse
for errors feels a tad against our UCD philosophy. We know that people
can be easily manipulated and doing so is not nice to say the least.
;-)

Mac hardware to run OSX is only expensive if you are used to buying
really cheap gung pao kiddy boxes with no horsepower. As soon as you
buy a dell/sony/gateway with any real sack (to run all the programs u
must have to be a designer) you are paying comparable prices.

> Todd/Andy " But, I believe people will eventually learn, once bitten> and twice shy. I don't think so, otherwise Windows would have died> long ago.>> Yup, that's theory vs. reality. ">> I strongly disagree. XP is a relatively good operating system.> Linux is a PITA to install for novices and OS X only runs on one> vendor's expensive hardware. There was no viable alternative to> Windows for the past decade but now that we have choice, we are> seeing people exercise their right to move.>> That's not to say XP is perfect and people have learned... once> bitten, twice shy - so, Vista anyone?>> The Windows platform IS dying. Consumers are not blindly upgrading> hardware anymore to run the latest OS. More people are understanding> that they only need a text editor and web browser, they no longer> _desire_ all the features advertised to them.>> This is the Market at work, with a healthy dose of anti-competitive> regulation against MSFT.>> Thanks /pauric>>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .> Posted from the new ixda.org>http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35669>>> ________________________________________________________________> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

18 Nov 2008 - 2:14pm

Todd Warfel

2003

I've been a mostly happy Mac person for close to 15 years. OS 8.5-9
was a hiccup, but OS 7x and X have been pretty fantastic, all things
considered.

Now, if software/hardware systems could just respond at the speed I
work, we'd be onto something.

On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Jack Moffett wrote:

> That's funny. I know a lot of people who were happily not using> Windows for the past decade.

> I've been a mostly happy Mac person for close to 15 years. OS 8.5-9> was a hiccup, but OS 7x and X have been pretty fantastic, all things> considered.>> Now, if software/hardware systems could just respond at the speed I> work, we'd be onto something.>> On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Jack Moffett wrote:>>> That's funny. I know a lot of people who were happily not using>> Windows for the past decade.>>> Cheers!>> Todd Zaki Warfel> President, Design Researcher> Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.> ----------------------------------> Contact Info> Voice: (215) 825-7423> Email: todd at messagefirst.com> AIM: twarfel at mac.com> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com> Twitter: zakiwarfel> ----------------------------------> In theory, theory and practice are the same.> In practice, they are not.>> ________________________________________________________________> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

18 Nov 2008 - 2:24pm

Todd Warfel

2003

On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:57 PM, William Evans wrote:

> Mac hardware to run OSX is only expensive if you are used to buying> really cheap gung pao kiddy boxes with no horsepower. As soon as you> buy a dell/sony/gateway with any real sack (to run all the programs> u must have to be a designer) you are paying comparable prices.

DISCLAIMER: This is NOT a Mac vs. PC debate.

As yourself this: How valuable is my time? How much is the entire
system (hardware+software)? How much time will I spend using the
system vs. getting up to speed, reinstalling, maintaining my system,
etc?

Personally, my time is too valuable to spend shopping for cheaper
hardware, assembling a system myself, and then trying to get everyone
to play along nice-nice w/each other. I just spent the past day-and-a-
half installing trying to install Vista, then reinstalling XP, then
installing Vista again. Vista still won't connect to the Internet. It
looks pretty, but I'm frustrated as hell. That's about 8-10 hours I
can't get back. At my billable rate, 8-10 hours is more than the
$200-300 I pay for my "premium" hardware.

That's why I use a Mac. I'll pay a $300 premium for a better system
that has less downtime and requires less baby sitting. More billable
time, less babysitting.

I have a brother-in-law who's in the other camp. He doesn't mind
spending hours hunting down a "good deal" on a piece of PC hardware,
installing it and then spending hours getting it to play nicely w/the
rest of his machine, updating drivers, running anti-virus software,
and mucking around in the registry. He uses a Windows PC. He doesn't
mind the babysitting, or rather has just gotten used to it. His wife
uses a Mac (he keeps eyeing it though).

For some, a Mac system is better. For others, there's Windows or Linux.

People are waking up to new rules of living online, from that drunken
frat photo your potential employer found to the Facebook Beacon
experiment.

There will always people who respond to the Nigerian banker.. less so
now than before.. see?!? And there will always be providers who try
to scam us. A list of rules wont fix that.

My argument is that by collectively learning these new rules that
hard way, in the long run consumers build up very effective defense
mechanisms and become savvy... savvy?

If Google did start stealing our ideas... that fact would get out and
people's trust in their services would be lost. They cant afford
that. The Realplayer is a good example of a once dominant product
that abused our privacy and is now an also-ran.

I'm sorry fellas, but if anyone thinks the current crisis is the cause
of an unregulated free market, you really don't know what you are
talking about. (And interestingly, this relates to IxD in a way)

You can not look at our financial system and say we have an unregulated
free market when:

- We have a federal reserve which artificially keeps interest rates low
in order to incentivise or discourage savings and investment that would
otherwise be subject to pure market conditions
- We have a monetary system bolstered by government bonds which are
impacting overall market conditions deeply and which are being issued at
an insane rate because the government is spending far more than it collects
- We have federal mandates and regulations which incentivise financial
institutions to offer loans to unfit consumers who would otherwise not
be approved, and which punishes financial institutions that do not
comply with the mandated risky behavior
- We have huge sweetheart deals being offered to businesses based on
political influence and affiliation with elected officials

None of these are "free market" activities.

The merits of free markets aside, we should at least be clear minded
that we are not in an unregulated free market, and in fact, we are in a
market that is highly distorted by government interference (which
directly contributed to the current crisis, though the extent is
debatable).

This of course is an interesting IxD point in that the experience of the
user (us) is highly subjective based on the beliefs and goals brought to
the system (the economy) and which directly impacts individual user
perceptions in radically different ways, despite the fact that the
system activities are absolutely the same for all users.

Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Dan Saffer wrote:>>> Yes, because we've seen how well an unregulated free market works>> recently.>>>> Users often cannot go elsewhere. [...] And even if you can switch, it>> can be a difficult process.>>>> The Users Rights would be for those who don't have a choice.>> I'm a firm believer in capitalism, free markets, and freedom of> choice. I'd love for free markets to work, but that would require all> people to have honor, integrity, and a sense of sympathy for our> fellow man. Unfortunately, one bad apple can ruin the bunch.>> Balance trumps idealism in my book. We need a balance between free> market and regulation.>> Too much regulation has shown to produce oppression and a socialist> welfare state, which creates dependency and reduces innovation. Look> at what Six Sigma did to 3M. A company known for innovation didn't> release an innovative product in 6 years.>> But the reverse is also true. Completely unregulated markets have been> shown to produce excessive greed. Look at the executives of the large> insurance and financial companies in the US.>> If we were all machines, than either of these two extremes would work.> The face is that we're human. And as humans we have certain desires> and needs, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While we> share similar categories of desires and needs, our individual> definitions of what qualifies those items is different.>> If it was always about choice, then fewer people would be using> Windows and more people would be using Macs. Detroit wouldn't be in> such a shambles.>> In short, we're human, which is why theoretical ideologies often fail.> Humans can are predictably unpredictable. And systems of balance work> better than extremes.>>> Cheers!>> Todd Zaki Warfel> President, Design Researcher> Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.> ----------------------------------> Contact Info> Voice: (215) 825-7423> Email: todd at messagefirst.com> AIM: twarfel at mac.com> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com> Twitter: zakiwarfel> ----------------------------------> In theory, theory and practice are the same.> In practice, they are not.>> ________________________________________________________________> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

18 Nov 2008 - 4:01pm

Jeremy Yuille

2007

coming in late here sorry,
I think this rocks, and that it could be made even better by rethinking how
it describes the things users use.
At the moment it uses the word 'product' and that's fine for insiders, but
to communicate to the world at large I feel another term might be better.

"Product" gets you caught up in markets or commerce, and my understanding
here is that this manifesto is about the rights of the user in a much wider
sense than just commercial offerings. Product Design and IxD etc are happy
with the wider meaning of the word, but most of the world isn't
(unfortunately commerce has co-opted the word product for its own)

so, yeah.. I really like the direction, but feel it's a little constrained
by its language.

just had a thought: perhaps the lawyers at the EFF might have some examples
of more generalized terminology...

Dan's DoHR article is great, but there's one significant omission: attention
paid to accessibility for the disabled. People who have visual, auditory or
physical disabilities should be able to use your product or website. The web
and related modern technologies can be very enabling for people who
otherwise have great difficulties in life, but only if we design with them
in mind. This is something that we as designers can do, ourselves, if only
we remember and make the commitment.

This charter is written form the citizens' perspective and consists
of 10 quality requirements for digital contacts. Each requirement is
formulated as a right of a citizen and a corresponding duty of
government.

Andy Polaine wrote:
> Seriously, though, the reality of many goods and services isn't> "once bitten, twice shy" but once bitten, forever a walking vampire> of whatever system bit you. Buy a Nikon DSLR and a few Nikon lenses,> it's a bit switch to move to Canon.

...but at least you get to take all your images with you during the
switch without any extra hassle. If I switched brands today, I'd still
be able to access all the images I took with the previous brand without
owning any special hardware.

If I have an iPod full of music purchased from Apple, how easy is it for
me to switch to a non-Apple media player and take all my tracks with me?

I think that's what Dan was getting at -- control of things you have a
legal right to.

> I think that's what Dan was getting at -- control of things you have> a legal right to.

That definitely, but it's a murky area. Up until a couple of years ago
in Australia it was still illegal to make a copy of a CD you bought -
there was no fair use policy in copyright law as there has been in the
USA for some time. So, technically, when the iPod came on the market,
everyone using one was breaking the law.

I still feel citizens' and human rights should filter down and simply
be enforced or informed by the design/service rather than having to be
a separate set of rights, but it's more about providing context for
those rights in application.